[gnso-wpm-dt] WPM Summary: 26 Jan 2010 Teleconference (Step 5-Temporarily Completed)

["Ken Bour" <ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

WPM Team Members:

 

As a result of our call today (26 January 2010), the following is a summary
of key actions and decisions:

 

1)      Preparation for Nairobi

The team discussed whether it could be ready to recommend a model and
process to the Council in time for the Nairobi ICANN meeting.  As Chuck
pointed out, since the cutoff for formal documents is 15 Feb, there is not
sufficient time to be able to approve and publish a final set of
recommendations.  Depending on how much progress is made in the next four
sessions, perhaps an overview can be presented to the Council as a way of
bringing it up-to-date on the WPM Team's progress and approach.  Wolf Ulrich
suggested that the team might also put together a timeline of activities in
its presentation to the Council.  

 

2)      X/Y Definitions

The team approved the definitions as drafted in Staff's 12 January summary.


 

3)      GNSO WPM Project List and Short Descriptions 

The team reviewed the latest version of the document (KBv4) and noted that
URL links should be embedded in each of the short descriptions, as
appropriate, to various other sites, pages, wikis, etc.  Liz and Ken will
work offline to ensure that the links are inserted and a new document
version will be created and distributed to team members. 

 

4)      Prioritized Project Definition 

Jaime raised the question as to how status categories are changed and who
has the authority to make them.  A thorough discussion ensued and gravitated
toward the idea of establishing a "standing committee" (size/composition
TBD) that would make recommendations for Council ratification.  Corollary
questions were also raised as to how new projects are added to the list and
when are they rated/prioritized?  What frequency should the WPM process be
exercised (e.g. monthly, semi-annually, annually)?  Since the rating process
is relative, is it possible to slot a new project into the matrix/chart
without reevaluating all of the others at the same time?  The team agreed
that it may be useful to move to Step 6 in its overall process before trying
to answer these questions.  The Prioritized Project definition will need to
be modified to include how status categories are changed and who makes those
determinations - once the team reaches agreement as to the final approach.  

 

5)      Multiple Raters?  

Staff raised the question as to whether or not the X and Y variables should
be rated by different parties (e.g. Council vs. Staff).  The team considered
the question and decided that, while Staff input would be useful in the
process, there does not need to be independent parties rating the
dimensions.  The team will need to consider how Staff's input should be
introduced.  

 

6)      7 Point Scale

The team agreed that the 7-point Likert scale worked well in testing;
therefore, no changes or alterations are recommended.  

 

7)      Group vs. Individual Rating Methodology

The team had just enough time to begin this discussion.  It became apparent
that the team is finding it increasingly challenging to make further
decisions on the process methodology without having a keener sense of how
the modeling/rating will be used to determine project priorities including
how they are to be encapsulated (e.g. sequential, groupings).  The team
agreed that, at its next session (2 February), it will temporarily table
Step 5 and move to the original Step 6 of the overall development process.
Staff will provide some thoughts for consideration via the email list.  Once
Step 6 has been completed, the team will loop back to Step 5 to solidify the
rating approach and its specific recommendations to the Council.  It will
also consider whether there any further testing needs to be performed by the
team. 

 

Prepared by:  Ken Bour, Policy Staff Consultant